You sound as if you are speaking from experience! Nonetheless, I don't believe it is helpful to characterize the issue as a "conspiracy" (or "brainwashing" for that matter) - because we have had far too many alleged "conspiracy theories" floating around in recent years and it diminishes the public's ability to sort out fact from fiction.

From where I'm sitting, the important thing to focus on is the complete lack of any verifiable evidence in support of the *theory* that C02 is the *primary cause* of "climate change" (formerly known as global warming). Without such verifiable evidence, setting unrealistic targets for reduction of C02 emissions - and/or taxing/trading "carbon credits (the latter of which in particular will not result in any "reduction" of C02 emissions) - is pointless.

Interestingly, yesterday's National Post has an article which suggests the planet may already have been "saved" from "global warming" by a "made in Canada solution"!

http://digital.nationalpost.com/epaper/showlink.a...

Yes, Jo Nova's Skeptic's Handbook is an excellent resource. Coyne would have done well to read it before he wrote this article!

There are certainly far more than "a few" dissenters. As a matter of fact, even before Climategate, there were at least 450 peer-reviewed articles by skeptics that the IPCC and the CRU crew would probably prefer that you ignore (just as they did). See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/15/reference-4...

And you might also be interested in an article in today's National Post
http://digital.nationalpost.com/epaper/showlink.a...

New Univeristy of Waterloo study finds CFCs, not CO2, to be the cause of recent global warming
The ozone hole did it

"Climate change is real and manmade, explains University of Waterloo professor Qin-Bin Lu, author of a new study published this week in the peer-reviewed journal, Physics Reports.

"The man-made cause of global warming is not CO2 and the international treaty that saved the planet is not the Kyoto Protocol [...]"

Bad news for all those traders who counted their carbon chicks before they were hatched, eh?!
http://hro001.wordpress.com/2010/01/09/traders-co...

I must add from the final few paragraphs in this Summary:

"[...]At least among experts, the results and conclusions should be understandable or reproducible. And it should be strictly distinguished between a theory and a model on the one hand, and between a model and a scenario on the other hand, as clarified in the philosophy of science.
[...]
"The point discussed here was to answer the question, whether the supposed atmospheric
effect has a physical basis. This is not the case. In summary, there is no atmospheric
greenhouse effect, in particular CO2-greenhouse effect, in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics. Thus it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting solution for economics and intergovernmental policy."

English is obviously not the writers' first language, but the message is quite clear. No wonder the IPCC's Dr. Pachauri is such an unhappy camper these days!

http://hro001.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/pachauri-p...

I think that link should be:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.116...

[it looks the same but actual URL should end with "1161v4.pdf" not "116..."]

Assuming that the article you had in mind was Gerlich & Tscheuschner's "Falsification Of
The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics" [published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275-364].

Interestingly, in the Physicist's Summary, one finds (inter alia):

"There are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses
and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effect, which explains the relevant physical
phenomena. The terms 'greenhouse effect' and 'greenhouse gases' are deliberate misnomers.
[...]
"Climatology misinterprets unpredictability of chaos known as [the] butterfly phenomenon as
another threat to the health of the Earth.

"In other words: Already the natural greenhouse effect is a myth beyond physical reality. The
CO2-greenhouse effect, however is a 'mirage'"

Thank you so much, jd, for pointing to these nuggets in a virtual goldmine!!

Now you've put your finger on the nub of the problem. The IPCC is NOT a good source, I agree - and the Summary for Policymakers is very much a "political" document; so, in effect, the science has been highly polluted by the politics! BUT, the US EPA takes their "science" from the IPCC recommendations... and since our government has committed to "harmonizing" C02 emisssion reduction targets with those of the US, I see a genuine cause for concern. One further point [then you can get back to doing what your employer is paying you for ;-) ] is that pre-post-modern science is NOT built on "consensus" - but on reproducible results.

I don't buy the conspiracy/brainwashing stuff either, btw ... to me, this is extra noise (similar to the truth/hoax false dichotomy). So, I hope the "other sources" to which you referred do not include CBC's Bob McDonald. Because while his credentials do not include that of a scientist (climate or otherwise), the "increased faster than predicted"appears to be his latest mantra.

From my research over the last two months, the only thing that has verifiably "increased faster than predicted" is the escalation of fact-free claims from members of the coalition of willing "science" journalists in our MSM - much to the detriment of helping the public understand the issues (or the "science", for that matter!)

I think you're making the same mistake that I observed elsewhere in response to Mr. Coyne: you have latched on to the false dichotomy of truth/hoax, which diverts the discussion from the weakest link in the climate scientists' argument. At this point, it really doesn't matter how many scientists "believe" in AGW. Nor does it matter whether how many scientists "believe" climate is changing. If it's warming/changing, well ... it is what it is!

The only thing that matters at this point (thanks to Pachauri and the IPCC) is the provision of evidence that human generated C02 is the *primary cause* of whatever is (or isn't!) happening! If you read through the IPCC's "Summary for Policymakers" the one thing that jumps out from all the foggy verbiage is the *conspicuous absence* of any reference to C02 (until it makes a mere cameo appearance in a table 4.2) . YMMV, but it seems to me that if there were any conclusive *evidence* of *causation*, they'd be shouting it from the rooftops instead of surrounding talk of "Carbon credits" and "Carbon tax" with the fog and mush of "likelihoods".

Saw this item over at the NP (but couldn't comment there) I spent some time on this Internews site! The organization has a very interesting "pedigree" (including S 501(c) 3 tax exempt status, so you were quite right about that). It was founded in '82 - and according to their most recently available Annual Report (2007) for the year ending Dec. 31/06 operating expenses were $27,065,215. Quite a tidy sum, eh?!

They were, at that time, getting funding from CIDA, btw.

And no doubt you'll be pleased to know that a donation of $100 "provides mentoring with senior journalists. Specialized topics such as gender-based violence, maternal health, HIV/AIDS, and climate change can be reported more accurately and engagingly when journalists receive in-depth training and mentoring."

I happen to have an interest in media coverage of the Middle East as well and could find no indication of any "false balance" there ... it was all very anti-Israel!

Interestingly, the UNEP did not appear in the list of sponsors/donors for that year (although there were several other UN bodies, and I haven't checked any of the earlier Annual Reports, but my guess would be that UNEP is a "new kid on the block"!)

Maybe the UNEP funding was the idea of IPCC "Dismisser-in-Chief" Pachauri, so that all those journalists can be fed his latest lines and whines. See:

http://hro001.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/pachauri-p...

[sorry if this appears as duplicate, but from where I'm sitting, my reply has disappeared]

My apologies ... Newsweek is deserving of any mocking it might get. But I'm afraid your "humble suggestion" is lacking in substantiation! OTOH, there is evidence in the emails as to how the CRU crew manufacture "consensus". Consider the following immortal Oct 9/97 words of Joseph Alcamo: "I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500 signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without."

My apologies - although I would certainly agree that Newsweek is definitely deserving of all the mocking it might get (not only for that particular cover story!). Nonetheless, while I very much doubt that there are "tens of thousands of climatologists", I have no doubt whatsoever that "tens of thousands" of non-climatologists have been woefully misinformed by Al Gore's scaremongering flick (and that the CBC has done more than its share of flogging this flick to the innocents of our planet!)

But that aside, the key phrase in that sentence of yours is "may have investigated", with the key *word* being "may". In fact, the emails are very revealing when it comes to indicating how this remarkable "consensus" gets built. I've followed the virtual paper trail for one example in http://hro001.wordpress.com/2009/12/06/the-fog-of... .

In addition, consider the recent kerfuffle at the APS whose executive - representing "thousands of scientists" - had also contributed an endorsement of this so-called "consensus".